Further delays in US F-35 testing schedule

[PuckChaser]

In 20-30 years we should be looking at the next aircraft to replace the F-35 which will be able to deal with the newer EW systems. I know that's not how our procurement system works, but maybe they'll fix it by then. Right now, the F-35 is top of the line and has the stealth advantage. Even if it only saves a handful of pilots/airframes, I think the cost is justified.

 

[aesop081]

Even if it only saves a handful of pilots/airframes, I think the cost is justified.

I can't argue with you there.

 

[WingsofFury]

It took less than 20 years for the F-117 to go from first flight to a bunch of pieces in a museum in Belgrade. Stealth is a precarious set of technologies and one single big development in EW will unballance it.

In my opinion, if we're looking at 20 years for EW to catch up and nullify the stealth technology that would be incorporated into the a/c then we at least had the stealth capability for 2/3's of the aircraft's service life, which if it is 30 years, then we had it available for 20 years which would lead us to about the year 2040.

Sure beats having an aircraft in service and not doing any upgrades until 20 years after we've been flying it, including through 2 aerial campaigns.  At least now the project is done and they're all up to standard, allbeit 30 years after they've been in service.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Matthew Fisher defends the F-35 purchase:

Political sniping over military purchases immature
http://www.canada.com/Political+sniping+over+military+purchases+immature/4448689/story.html

...
As Canada so rarely buys such big ticket items, its aircraft and warships must provide front-line service for a very long time. It therefore makes eminent good sense to buy the very best ships and planes possible.

The government's critics don't see it that way. Now they're delighted to have the apparent support of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Kevin Page, whose scandalous arithmetic is being used to attack the F-35 purchase. By reaching out 30 years, this constant critic of the government has inflated the cost of the project to nearly $30-billion. That is largely the basis for the claim that the government has underestimated costs by about 70 per cent.

Even if Kevin Page's generous calculations are found to be true in 2051, Canada will have acquired a fleet of fifth-generation fighters for a cost of about $1-billion a year, which translates into a mere four per cent of the current defence budget, which is already among the lowest of any western nation.

Since the idea seems to be find the biggest figure possible with which to whack the government, the budget office and the opposition should similarly calculate Canada's projected spending on health care and aboriginal peoples over the next 30 years. At a very rough guess, the cost for health care is likely to be about $900 billion and more than $300 billion will likely be spent on Canada's fast growing native populations.

To make such calculations is, of course, unfair, but no more unfair than the way calculations on the F-35 have been purposely devised to find the highest possible figure with which to scare voters.

Curiously, in more mature countries, where there is a realism about the high cost of military purchases, there has not been a huge debate about buying the F- 35s among allies such as Norway, Turkey, Australia and Great Britain...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[aesop081]

In my opinion, if we're looking at 20 years for EW to catch up

Well, not quite. It took nearly 20 years back then but unlike fighter technology development, EW system development is not tied to lenghty periods of service. While a fighter serves 30 years before being replaced, electronic systems have a much shorter service life thus leading to accelerated development. The ongoing reasearch in EW and IR systems goes on at a pace that is exponential when compared to fighter development. Its not as simple as saying "it took 20 years to do it  back then so it will take 20 years to do it tomorow".

 

[MarkOttawa]

Ernie Regehr, at his blog “DisarmingConflict.ca”, seems to have got hold of something very like our Air Force’s “Statement of Requirements” for the F-35:
http://disarmingconflict.ca/2011/03/16/worst-case-scenarios-and-the-f-35/

…
Such scenarios…in turn lead to a list of what DND calls “High Level Mandatory Capabilities,” a series of operational characteristics or capabilities that it says the next fighter aircraft must possess to meet all contingencies. There are at least eleven such features, eight of which, says DND, can be met by “fourth generation aircraft,” like the current CF-18:

* Range: A specific range is not mentioned, but it “must be capable of flying long distances” without air-to-air refuelling;
* Air-to-air refuelling: In-flight refuelling is nevertheless required to extend that range in certain instances;
* Speed: Again, no specifics, except to say that it must be capable of intercepting other fighter and bomber aircraft;
* Endurance: Must be capable of “combat air patrol” within “a range of geographical locations”;
* Deployable: Similarly it must be capable of being deployed globally “in a full range of geographic, environmental, climatic and threat conditions”;
* Intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance: The new fighter is to have “superior” capability in each of these “during and following the deployment of weapons”;
* Weapons: It must be capable of firing a “range of air-to-air and air-to-surface weapons in all weather conditions, day and night, in threatening and non-threatening environments”;
* Growth potential: It must be capable of receiving upgrades to enhance operation capabilities, as well as survivability and interoperability.

But there are three additional characteristics, says DND, which can be met only by fifth generation fighters, i.e. the F-35:

* Survivability: “The aircraft must be capable of defending itself and its crew by employing a range of self-defence technologies and minimizing the risk of detection, engagement and damage in threatening environments” – meaning stealth.
* Interoperability: “The aircraft must be capable of effectively operating in joint (land, sea and aerospace) and combined environments with Canada’s allies.”
* Sensors and Data Fusion: “The aircraft must be capable of accurately detecting, tracking, identifying, prioritizing, engaging and assessing a range of air-to-air and air-to-surface contacts in all weather conditions, day and night, in permissive and non-permissive environments.”..

Mark
Ottawa

 

[WingsofFury]

Military questions PBO's cost projections for F-35s
The Canadian Press
Date: Friday Mar. 18, 2011 6:36 AM ET

OTTAWA — The Defence Department has joined the Harper government in questioning the credibility of the parliamentary budget officer's report on the costs of stealth jet fighter program.

A top military official said Thursday the cost of buying 65 high-tech fighters would be about $15 billion over 20 years, including maintenance costs.

That differs from the recent report of PBO Kevin Page that pegged the entire cost to taxpayers at $22.6 billion over 20 years.

Page has been a thorn in the side of the Conservative government. His fighter jet assessment was criticized by Laurie Hawn, the junior defence minister, who called it speculative and illogical.

Dan Ross, a Defence Department assistant deputy, said Thursday the military has requested a meeting with Page's office to discuss his figures.

Ross told a briefing at Defence Department headquarters in Ottawa that the PBO made a "mathematical error" in calculating the unit cost of the planes, and that its maintenance numbers were off too. His briefing was augmented by an array of slides, and documentation that was distributed to journalists.

The fighter jet purchase is expected to be an incendiary issue if the country is plunged into a federal election in the coming weeks.

The Liberals say they would cancel the purchase of the jets and hold a competition to replace the air force's aging fleet of CF-18 fighters. They say the big ticket military purchase is ill-timed with the government facing a $54 billion deficit, and Canadian families stretched because of the recession.

Ross's briefing came as the Harper government faces a tumultuous week in the House of Commons, where it could be defeated on its next budget or other opposition motions.

Ross said he was not questioning the integrity of the latest Page report. But that didn't stop him from taking a few understated shots at his report.

On at least two occasions, Ross off-handedly said that some of Page's calculations were based on a paper by "a Czech academic."

In his report, Page noted that he had trouble getting answers from the Defence Department.

"The PBO sought clarification from DND on the methodology employed, the data, and the desired confidence interval that form the basis of the government's costing figures. DND confirmed that such analysis has not yet been undertaken," he wrote.

Asked to explain the apparent lack of co-operation by the military, Ross said: "The PBO gave us a list of questions ... We replied to them with a pretty detailed list of answers. And I don't recall being asked to explain or methodology either in their questions or in response to the information that we sent back to them. There wasn't an opportunity to actually meet with them face to face and discuss the details of either their methodology or ours."

Ross said the military was in touch with the PBO earlier in the week, and that there was interest in meeting to discuss the jet procurement.

In his report, Page said the total price tag for the 65 high-tech fighters could reach $29.3 billion if maintenance costs are extended over 30 years to cover the full, expected service life of the aircraft.

Page said that the government was not being transparent in its cost estimates to Canadians.

The political battle over the stealth fighters mirrors a similar dust up in the early 1990s when the Jean Chretien Liberals campaigned against the Conservative government's EH-101 helicopter purchase. Chretien cancelled the helicopter contract, paying $500 million to get out of the deal, when he won power in 1993 ending a two terms of majority Conservative government.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20110318/military-planners-question-pbo-estimates-on-cost-of-stealth-fighters-110318/

 

[dapaterson]

For those inside the DWAN, the full transcript of the ADM(Mat) / CAS presentation is available at the ADM(PA) website.

Interesting to note that there were reps from US defence and avaition publications participating by phone, and asking questions.

 

[Haletown]

So the PBO can't do basic arithmetic and make a $1 billion addition error, they conclude canceling a multi-billion dollar second engine cost will increase the program costs and  they invent some truly, truly, bizarre  estimating methodology for  future aircraft costs based on the weight of an aircraft and people still take Kevin Page/the CBO seriously?


Wonder how Page figured out how much 8 million lines of software code weighs?

 

[Rifleman62]

The media, the opposition parties, the Harper haters, all take Page seriously because it suits their purpose. That's the way it is in this country.

 

[The Bread Guy]

The media, the opposition parties, the Harper haters, all take Page seriously because it suits their purpose. That's the way it is in this country.

Not just here....

 

[dapaterson]

The full transcript is at:

http://media.mil.ca/show-voir-eng.asp?URL=/Transcripts/201103/11031701.htm

And it's well worth a read, if only to notice that the two journalists asking questions from US media sources (Aviation Week and Defence Technology International) are actually professionals, who know the program and the related US legsilative requirements and thus can ask informed questions.

Their Canadian confreres, on the other hand, are incapable of doing basic math (their own admission) and seemed like rubes with little knowledge to leverage in their questioning.

 

[Haletown]

The full transcript is at:

http://media.mil.ca/show-voir-eng.asp?URL=/Transcripts/201103/11031701.htm

Can you check that URL . . . not working here  . . .

 

[The Bread Guy]

The full transcript is at:

http://media.mil.ca/show-voir-eng.asp?URL=/Transcripts/201103/11031701.htm

Is this a CF-only accessible site?  Doesn't work for me, either....

 

[dapaterson]

Sorry - I had mentionned in my earlier post that the transcript was DWAN-only.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Sorry - I had mentionned in my earlier post that the transcript was DWAN-only.

My mistake - thought that was a different link from what you referred to earlier.

And it's well worth a read, if only to notice that the two journalists asking questions from US media sources (Aviation Week and Defence Technology International) are actually professionals, who know the program and the related US legsilative requirements and thus can ask informed questions.

Their Canadian confreres, on the other hand, are incapable of doing basic math (their own admission) and seemed like rubes with little knowledge to leverage in their questioning.

Without looking at the transcript, the Canadian reporters were likely "government correspondents" (asking "what's this mean for gov't?"), as opposed to the tech media being (almost) "F-35/aviation industry correspondents" (asking "what's this mean for the F-35 program/sales?").  It would take a whole lot o' hiring to be able to staff Canadian newsrooms to this level of focus/expertise.  I'm guessing even "defence/security correspondents" here don't get as much of a chance to focus/specialize as Aviation Week or Janes reporters.

 

[MarkOttawa]

And it's well worth a read, if only to notice that the two journalists asking questions from US media sources (Aviation Week and Defence Technology International) are actually professionals, who know the program and the related US legsilative requirements and thus can ask informed questions.

Their Canadian confreres, on the other hand, are incapable of doing basic math (their own admission) and seemed like rubes with little knowledge to leverage in their questioning.

Without looking at the transcript, the Canadian reporters were likely "government correspondents" (asking "what's this mean for gov't?"), as opposed to the tech media being (almost) "F-35/aviation industry correspondents" (asking "what's this mean for the F-35 program/sales?").  It would take a whole lot o' hiring to be able to staff Canadian newsrooms to this level of focus/expertise.  I'm guessing even "defence/security correspondents" here don't get as much of a chance to focus/specialize as Aviation Week or Janes reporters.

Which is why, as readers may have noted, many of my post are based AW&ST, FlightGlobal, Fort Worth Star-Telegram and so on.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

DND material on F-35 costs is here:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/pri/2/pro-pro/ngfc-fs-ft/narrative-recit-eng.asp
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/pri/2/pro-pro/ngfc-fs-ft/comparison-comparaison-eng.asp

Most recent US GAO statement does not appear to have been taken into account:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/99306/post-1026387/topicseen.html#msg1026387

Nor this:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/99306/post-1026760.html#msg1026760

...
The [US] Air Force, in its statement, says it expects a two-year delay in the F-35A's IOC, which would push it back to 2018.

The DND material may have been a bit, er, premature.

Meanwhile in Norway:

Concerns fly over fighter jet costs
http://www.newsinenglish.no/2011/03/16/concerns-fly-over-fighter-jet-costs/

Norwegian politicians are once again deeply concerned by reports of soaring prices for the US-made fighter jets that the government has agreed to buy. Newspaper Dagsavisen reported Tuesday [March 15] that the price may have jumped from the NOK 18 billion approved by the Parliament, to an astonishing NOK 144 billion.

So enormous is the feared price hike that the issue is heading for review by the Norwegian Parliament’s committee charged with control of cost and constitutional matters, reports Dagsavisen.

Hallgeir Langeland, a Member of Parliament and its control committee, said lawmakers must discuss whether the costs can possibly be accepted in relation to the decision taken to buy the jets in 2008.

“The government said at that time that we’d be buying the cheapest jets,” said Langeland, who hails from one of the three parties making up Norway’s coalition government, the Socialist Left (SV). “But we didn’t know the price then and we don’t know it now. The only thing we know is that it’s climbing, and it’s climbing fast.”

The Canadian report is the latest in a series of indications that the fighter jet prices are accelerating quickly.
http://www.newsinenglish.no/2010/12/28/fighter-jet-price-seems-to-soar/
The jets remain on the drawing board [actually, no], not least because the countries that have ordered them have various desires and specifications that also are driving up the price, according to Dagsavisen...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

PBO vs. DND continues:

Canada Budget Watchdog Stands By F-35 Cost Estimates
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110323-710223.html

...
Canada's defense department puts the average acquisition cost of each jet at C$75 million, including upgrades and overhaul, while the budget officer puts it at US$128 million - excluding upgrades and overhaul - Page said in a report Wednesday.

He said the department seems to have relied on figures published by the U.S. defense department and those provided by the Joint Strike Fighter program office. But he noted that the U.S. figures were published in April 2010, and since then the JSF program has undergone two restructurings to address delays and cost overruns.

Page said "the reasonableness of relying on such figures might be questioned," and that he continues to stand by his own forecast...

Budget officer stands by disputed jet costs
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/959241--budget-officer-stands-by-disputed-jet-costs

...
In a follow-up paper, Page’s office was adamant: “The PBO continues to stand by its forecast.”

There is a vast and inexplicable void between the two costs that have been put forward. The Department of National Defence puts the per-plane cost at $75-million while the budget office arrived at a price of more than $128-million.

Page’s report Wednesday said his office is “left to speculate” about how the military arrived at such a cost.

“Perhaps coincidentally, this figure reflects statements made by Lockheed Martin (the manufacturer) in 2001,” he writes.

Page notes that a March 2011 estimate by the U.S. Government Accountability Office—the equivalent of Canada’s Auditor General—puts the price-per-jet at US$133-million and even the U.S. Department of Defense has earmarked US$151 to purchase a single jet...

“The suggestion that Canada would be able to negotiate a price below the average unit acquisition cost should be treated with caution,” Page writes.

In part, his report says, that’s because American laws don’t allow military equipment to be sold abroad at a lower price than what the U.S. pays, because a special deal for Canada wouldn’t fly with other nations looking to buy the F-35 jets and because Lockheed Martin, a publicly traded corporation, wouldn’t likely swallow the extra costs.

PBO's new paper here:
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/PBO-DPB/documents/F35_QA_EN.pdf

Plus from AW&ST:

JSF Cost Predictions Rattle Foreign Customers
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2011/03/21/AW_03_21_2011_p27-297530.xml

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Brian Stewart, winner of the 2009 Ross Munro Media Award from the Conference of Defence Associations and the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute,
http://cda-cdai.ca/cda/ross-munro-media-award/2009-brian-stewart
makes some interesting points:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/03/23/f-vp-stewart.html

Jet lag: Some hard questions about the F-35 purchase

…the Libya campaign drives home an awkward historical point — that Canada has never used more than a handful of jet fighters in foreign conflicts and there’s no reason to suspect this will change in the coming decades.

Just consider the record of the past 66 years, right back to the end of the Second World War.

Here’s the number of fighters we’ve committed to the five conflicts we’ve been in:

Korean War (1950-53), none. Gulf War (1991), 24. Kosovo (1999), 18. Afghanistan (2001-2011), none.
http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/?p=69Libya (2011), six
[actually seven–one is a spare according to MND MacKay at a press briefing today].

Surely there’s a message in such numbers. Throughout the jet age, Canada has acquired more than 1,100 fighters, out of which only 48 have seen service in our five hot conflicts…[One should however note that from the 1950s until the end of the Cold War a large part of Canada’s fighter force was deployed with NATO in Europe, ready to take part in a hot war from day one against a very major power.  That situation no longer exists, something that needs to be taken into account when considering what is required in a new fighter.]

…over six decades our federal governments have always been leery of sending many planes into combat zones and it has deployed them only to those situations where air superiority is already guaranteed by large numbers of U.S., British and, occasionally, French forces.

I can’t see this changing, can you?..

…we should really be asking ourselves more hard questions. Like, just what will the F-35 missions be?..

…the F-35 is only partially stealth and, anyway, it’s not at all clear how critical the difference such an advantage would be given our usually limited overseas air role…

In other words do we need the stealth capability for initial strike through and against heavy and effective air defences? That is the main driver for stealth in the F-35 whose primary role is as a bomb truck. Indeed after initial strikes create a relatively permissive air space the F-35 will engage with the much heavier bomb load provided by external carriage–which negates stealth.  From Lockheed Martin Canada:
http://f-35.ca/2010/seventh-f-35-makes-first-flight/

…
Supersonic launch of internal weapons, including maximum-speed (Mach 1.6) launch of internal air-to-air missiles, is a feature of all F-35s. An internal-weapons-only configuration is used when Very Low Observable stealth is required to complete a mission. When VLO stealth is not required, more than 15,000 pounds of additional ordnance can be loaded onto six external pylons…

If the F-35 ends up considerably more expensive than the gov't claims should Canada pay that difference for a capability that is not likely to be very relevant for our military, and unlikely to add that much to any coalition’s strength?  And which is not required for the Canadian airspace patrol/protection mission?

Mark
Ottawa